September 04, 2004

NOT LITERATE, JOHN

Margo invents a new word:

Here’s a prediction from a bloke who worked on Labor’s campaign in the Cunningham byelection at which The Greens trounded Labor in a boilover in 2002.

Perfectly cromulent.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 4, 2004 09:13 PM
Comments

Another margarbled linguic misfabulation.

Posted by: Amos at September 4, 2004 at 09:51 PM

trounCed, obviously.

I thought you were above such pettiness Tim. Clearly your obsession with Margot has distorted your sense of perspective.

Posted by: Adam at September 4, 2004 at 09:52 PM

The Greens trounded Labor in a boilover in 2002.

Eh, as far as I know, the ALP candidate received a far higher primary vote than the Green, but sneaked ahead on preferences.

Is that a trouncing?

Posted by: Quentin George at September 4, 2004 at 10:02 PM

Margo Kingston hunts the dreaded Howard, with apologies to Lewis Carroll:

She took her vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe she sought.
Then rested she by the tum-tum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
One! two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snickersnack!
She left it dead, and with its head
She went galumphing back.
'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish girl!
O frabjious day! Calooh! Calay!'

Posted by: The Mongrel at September 4, 2004 at 10:13 PM

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest Margo.

Posted by: Sean M. at September 4, 2004 at 10:21 PM

Her use of the word was completely purjactafory.

Posted by: Richad at September 4, 2004 at 10:30 PM

Trounded is a perfectly crumbulent word.

Posted by: hen at September 4, 2004 at 11:28 PM

``Trounded'' is the American spelling. British has ``trount,'' in morphology somewhere between ``spelt'' and ``bent.'' Labour was trount by the Greens.

Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 4, 2004 at 11:54 PM

It's obvious that she has merged the words "trounced" and "pounded".

The stupitch.

Posted by: fidens at September 5, 2004 at 12:04 AM

If you hadn't explained, I'd have thought it was just more Austroilian.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 5, 2004 at 12:23 AM

Is it true Howard punishmented Latham?

Posted by: richard mcenroe at September 5, 2004 at 01:41 AM

Margo's frequent uncorrected misspellings and malapropisms are a running joke here on Tim Blair's site, Adam. Where have you been?

As to your sniffy "it's beneath you" attitude, I don't see how. The occasional typo is one thing, but this Margo wench has at least one in every column. It's all part and parcel of the attitude of her and her employers towards... well, as far as I can tell, life, the universe, and everything. Correcting things is "bad," we've all gotta be "authentic" in everything, which means don't correct mistakes. The reading public doesn't matter, so don't bother writing carefully for them. Stream-of-consciousness "impulse" writing is better than a carefully-crafted essay. Knee-jerk emotionalism ("Not Happy John"? -- since when is a government official supposed to worry about whether some web writer is happy or not?) vs. reasoned debate. And so on.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 5, 2004 at 01:54 AM

Well done mongrel, back to the baby now eh?

Posted by: nic at September 5, 2004 at 02:30 AM

Margo's smarly corpescence is truly grolluble.

Dr. Suess lives!

Posted by: charles austin at September 5, 2004 at 03:39 AM

Is "running joke" a euphemism for "lame filler"?

Posted by: Robert at September 5, 2004 at 05:16 AM

Well, seeing as Margo is the running joke, yes, I suppose she could be described as 'lame filler'...

Posted by: rosignol at September 5, 2004 at 06:14 AM

"Is 'running joke' a euphemism for 'lame filler'?"

Well, someone sure is a Captain Crankypants today.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 5, 2004 at 07:04 AM

"Crankypants"! I do believe Andrea H. has created a new word, and given it a military rank. That's a twofer. Coolah, calay you Bandersnatch!

Posted by: Gerry at September 5, 2004 at 07:58 AM

From the same article:

"Howard has ignored the beliefs and values of part of his core constuency for so long that his safe Liberal seats are Not Happy!"

Margo forgot to add that, as long as he doesn't ignore his core constituency, though, his safe seats can be still Very Happy.

Posted by: charlotte at September 5, 2004 at 08:09 AM

wahts a "boilover" did someone leave the kettle on - Not happy.

Posted by: Giles at September 5, 2004 at 09:30 AM

Gerry: I can't claim that word, I saw it on someone's weblog comments somewhere.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 5, 2004 at 10:54 AM

A friend who worked with her described Margo at work."She sits cross legged, as she hammers on her typewriter with an unrestrained ferocity, while in a constant haze of cigarette smoke, she's totally mad you know." So in that context I can understand how Margo may tap an incorrect key from time to time.It's surprising she doesn't do it more often.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 5, 2004 at 11:13 AM

Has Howard ignored the beliefs and values of part of his core constituency for so long that his safe Liberal seats are not happy? I guess the weasel word in there is 'part'. Margo, which part?

Can Howard's core constituency be really characterised as unhappy with the PM? So much that they'd vote him out? I doubt it, but I wouldn't find out one way or the other by reading Margo.

Her misspelling and grammar screwups are one thing, (I mean, she writes in a major newspaper, not a private blog for fuck sake) what they're symptomatic of is a disordered, delusional and utterly dishonest mind. It's so bush league.

Posted by: Amos at September 5, 2004 at 11:36 AM

A friend who worked with her described Margo at work."She sits cross legged, as she hammers on her typewriter with an unrestrained ferocity

No offense to people who still use typewriters (a proto-keyboard to all you non-boomers), but don't most journalists use computers nowadays? You know, for spellchecking, and editing, and archiving, and... you know... journalistic stuff like that?

Posted by: Rebecca at September 5, 2004 at 11:50 AM

It's so bush league.

Let's not go there, Mr. Amos.

Posted by: K. Rove at September 5, 2004 at 11:51 AM

At some point her typed page must be transferred to the electronic, is it transferred with spelling errors intact? Can't it be edited? Can't, I don't know, an intern or someone load it into Word and spend five minutes spellchecking?

I doubt she uses a type writer, this stream of consciousness garbage she turns out would not go through a copyist with spelling errors intact. I think your friend must have meant keyboard. (but shit, who knows)

Posted by: Amos at September 5, 2004 at 12:31 PM

I stream consciousness and garbage, Amos and you other bloggies? You have a problem with my riting? Are you perhaps obesing over the little things and not seeing the greater things? You make me Not Happy, and I hope you're candidate gets trounded this election. What I do is free/ flow a higher truth about whose happy or Not in terms of whether politicians honor there constuents. I know that John Howard lies and forgets he is suposed to serve the People's House and not the Zionist controlers. Children overboard! Did you hear that, Amos? And I also no that John is a puppet for Bush who is a puppet for Zion Israel. The great political commentater and Palm door winning Micheal Moore says Bush serves the House of Suad and that we should never have attacked and occupied Iraque. Latham will win this election and led us out of that debakcle, mark my words. And, if my words aren't speled properly enough for you, than that's becuse the Jews me provided with this Word program and I am not responsible for what you see imprint. Get over youself.

Posted by: Margo at September 5, 2004 at 02:07 PM

LOL at Margo.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 5, 2004 at 02:39 PM

Darn, I forgot to abuse my apostrophe's.

Posted by: Margo at September 5, 2004 at 03:23 PM

Blair's ability to 'play the (wo)man and not the ball' over a "d" instead of a "c" just goes to show he really is a small petty man.

Posted by: jim at September 5, 2004 at 03:37 PM

How dare you en-challengate my perspicous insightion, Margo. Why, so enturbed it thinkings me that I am zimmyzinging with enbiggening enragement (appologie for any wrongspellcrime) can the Johnnydonning of Hitler's wig be far AWAY!!!?

Posted by: Amos at September 5, 2004 at 03:40 PM

Hey, and Jim, it's pretty small of you not to notice out problem with Margo is that she's a crazyangry delusional fuckup

Posted by: Amos at September 5, 2004 at 03:42 PM


Perhaps she uses this...

Posted by: Robert at September 5, 2004 at 03:56 PM

"Tround" is an obscure form of ammunition, used in revolvers and rifles made by the Dardick company in the 1950s.

The Trounds (TRiangular-rOUNDS) - literally triangular in cross section, allowed the weapon to function as an "automatic" and yet still allow for a revolver-style breach mechanism.

Obscure, of novelty value only, ugly and un-commercial. Fitting words for Kingston, methinks.

Posted by: Endgame at September 5, 2004 at 04:15 PM

A friend who worked with her described Margo at work."She sits cross legged, as she hammers on her typewriter with an unrestrained ferocity.

Rebecca,permit the poetic licence of typewriter over keyboard;I don't know I just visualized the scene on an old mechanical typewriter,it works for me .I am aware of technological advances made in the newspaper industry,keyboards on computers etc.But my friend works for Rupert now and I don't know how long ago they worked together at the Herald she looks like she is late 50's or older.For all I know she may have been bashing away on a Linotype machine in the Letterpress section.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 5, 2004 at 04:27 PM

Is "running joke" a euphemism for "(F)lame filler"?

Posted by: Egg at September 5, 2004 at 04:48 PM

Margo has been trounded enough. I want to know what "boilover" means. In the U.S., a boilover may lead to scalding, but that's about it. Well, I guess the greens could be overcooked and mushy.

Posted by: Joanne Jacobs at September 5, 2004 at 06:13 PM

Boilover =shock upset,suprising defeat.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 5, 2004 at 06:49 PM

Andrea -- the "Not Happy John" line is a play on words. In Australia, the Yellow Pages ran ad campaign a few years ago that featured an exchange between a businesswoman and her PA, Jan, with the dialogue ending with the businesswoman angry with Jan for forgetting to put their ad in that year's Yellow Pages. The line was, in angry tones, "Not (pause) happy (pause), Jan!"

Hence the "Not Happy John" line - the Yellow Pages line sort of slipped into the Australian vernacular.

Posted by: Alex at September 5, 2004 at 07:17 PM

Alex,

"Not Happy Jan" was a well known Aussie euphemism long before the yellow pages ad, along the same lines as "its a joke Joyce". I think someone needs to do a little more retibating before colimping in the gillumdickle.

Posted by: The Comments Police at September 5, 2004 at 09:35 PM

I do wonder what all the newspaper editors are doing. I keep finding annoyed grammatical errors in the NY Times -- I expect factual idiocies, but for crying out loud! Aren't there people who are supposed to check these things? I'm guessing they've got liberal arts degrees, and thus do not know the basic mechanics of English; I suppose they're there to check that the slant is correct.

Posted by: meep at September 5, 2004 at 11:27 PM

Excruciable. Which is a portmanteau word from Execrable and Excruciating. That's Margot.

Though I see from Webster's that it also means "liable to Torment".

Which also fits Margot. She's liable to torment anyone possessed of at least two neurons that fire consecutively.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at September 6, 2004 at 12:08 AM

Rebecca,permit the poetic licence of typewriter over keyboard

Ah! You got me, gubbaboy! Sometimes I'm a bit too literal. However, watch that 50's business, boy! *smiles sweetly*

Posted by: Rebecca at September 6, 2004 at 02:19 AM

Margo’s spellings are a form of protest by the flesh & bones of language against established orthodoxies of minds & brains. Come the revolution, Margo’s spellings will swing back to norbal.

Posted by: ForNow at September 6, 2004 at 06:32 AM

I haven't ever heard "scrutineered" either. Is this an Aussie thing?

"I handed out how-to-vote-cards and scrutineered one of the largest booths in Cunningham. There was no animosity from the constituents. They were all very polite, so I thought we should be OK."

Posted by: Forrest Covington at September 6, 2004 at 06:38 AM

Did anyone see the Sunday program on Channel Nine yesterday morning? Either Garry Linnell from "The Bulletin" had swallowed something that disagreed with his constitution or he doesn't like the charismatic Margo.

Posted by: Lofty at September 6, 2004 at 08:08 AM

I wish I could vote. But unfortunatly that means regestering, that means letting the government know where I live and with my tax situation, that's not wise.

Posted by: Amos at September 6, 2004 at 09:11 AM

Excruciable. Which is a portmanteau word from Execrable and Excruciating. That's Margot.

Yes, it's the Margot lingot.

Posted by: TimT at September 6, 2004 at 10:00 AM

She's an idiot, but I think you're splitting hairs here. 'c' and 'd' are pretty close on the keyboard. Remember when Piers Akerman wrote a few months back that the Berlin Wall fell in '1999'. That was pretty much the same mistake.

Posted by: Brent at September 6, 2004 at 10:33 AM

She's an idiot, but I think you're splitting hairs here. 'c' and 'd' are pretty close on the keyboard. Remember when Piers Akerman wrote a few months back that the Berlin Wall fell in '1999'? That was pretty much the same mistake.

Posted by: Brent at September 6, 2004 at 10:34 AM

On my second post I corrected a little mistake of my own. I added a question mark that should have been there. I'm a damned fool.

Posted by: Brent at September 6, 2004 at 10:36 AM

To the people who try to cover for Margo's drivel, are you getting paid for your services or anything, or is it like volunteer hospice work? You're generous souls to spend so much of your day cleaning up after her. Me, I'd rather be changing bedpans myself...

Posted by: Sortelli at September 6, 2004 at 11:19 AM

Maybe if we ignore Margo for long enough she just go away.

Posted by: Drftrx at September 6, 2004 at 11:34 AM

"I wish I could vote. But unfortunatly that means regestering, that means letting the government know where I live and with my tax situation, that's not wise."-Amos.
Dude your name didn't used to be Skase did it?

Posted by: TC at September 6, 2004 at 01:57 PM

Actually Margot admitted that she voted for Howard in 1996. As someone said before me "she is mad."
And this is not the only proof she is mad. With the feeble use of the word "tround" this left wing newt thought she could be the lefts equivalent of dopey Dubya Bush with his right wing destruction of the language.
Cleary the girl Kingsford is quite off far off her rocker - she has nowhere the resources to compete in this war of words.
Even now the military industrial complex has its top researchers working on more new words for their poster boy Dopey Dubya to "invent." How could this Kingsford character in her wildest dreams think she could single handedly compete with that.
As someone said, she is plainly mad.
Apparently the next word invented for Dubya is "Incentivation". But our glorious PM quickly warned them off saying that he had already tried that one when Opposition Leader in the 80s.
And we all know what happened that time didnt we? Yes Bob trounded him.

Posted by: the common good at September 6, 2004 at 02:38 PM

Seriously, "the common good", is this a paying gig or charity work on your behalf?

Posted by: Sortelli at September 6, 2004 at 06:08 PM

My real name is not Skase and that's an outrageous allegation and I'd sue you if I could find you and if my lawyers could find me.

Posted by: Amos at September 6, 2004 at 08:10 PM

I invite everyone to sing along with the Cogito Ergot Margot song!

Posted by: TimT at September 6, 2004 at 09:29 PM

I humbly acknowledge the Comments Police's greater knowledge. Put it down to being a humble gen-Xer. I did know "it's a joke Joyce", though.

Forrest Covington -- if one has "scrutineered" on polling day, it means that one has agreed to act as an agent for a parliamentary candidate to ensure that the process of counting votes is done correctly, and specifically to challenge where possible those votes (incorrectly) cast for the opponents of the candidate you support.

During polling day in Australia, the supporters of candidates (who may or may not become 'scrutineers' later when the electoral commission counts the votes) hand out leaflets recommending how people whould vote, and direct their electoral preferences. Australia has an STV (single tranferrable vote) electoral system.

The example you refer to in your text is the electorate of Cunningham, a traditionally safe Labor seat in Wolllongong, NSW, which was won by the Greens in a by-election in 2002.

Posted by: Alex at September 6, 2004 at 09:31 PM

Alex: who cares what she meant by it? The woman is obviously a few brain cells shy of a full load, if not completely stupid, but she seems to be passed off as some sort of intellectual down in your neck of the woods. Frankly I think that Tim's attempt here to spread the word about the true state of her brain is doing your country a favor, reputation-wise.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 7, 2004 at 09:18 AM

Andrea, I completely agree with you. I was just trying to explain to Forrest what 'scrutineer' meant in the context of an election. I also just wanted to explain the "Not Happy John/Jan" line to Americans. Rest assured I'm a big John Howard fan.

I'm also mindful (as the son of an American) that Australian English is full of colloquialisms and I was just trying to explain a few to our American friends that read this web site, given most readers are from the US and Australia.

A

Posted by: Alex at September 7, 2004 at 09:28 PM